Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Applicant Maude Lecours sought to stay a Quebec class action in favour of parallel proceedings pending before the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
• DoorDash is alleged to have engaged in "drip pricing" by advertising low initial delivery prices and adding mandatory fees — such as service, delivery, expanded-range, small order, and "regulatory response" fees — only at checkout.
• Both the Quebec proceeding and the B.C. proceedings target the same defendants and are grounded in the same facts and causes of action.
• Article 3137 of the Civil Code of Quebec governs the stay of local proceedings in favour of a foreign action, but typically requires the foreign action to have been filed first.
• Inherent jurisdiction under Article 49 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows a Quebec court to grant a stay even where the Quebec action was filed first, if the interests of justice and Quebec class members so warrant.
• Protecting Quebec class members requires ensuring proper representation, application of favourable Quebec law, and bilingual communications reaching residents in the province.

Facts of the case

On June 10, 2025, Maude Lecours filed a Motion to Authorize the Bringing of a Class Action and to Appoint herself as Representative Plaintiff (the "Quebec Proceeding") before the Quebec Superior Court, on behalf of Quebec residents who placed delivery orders through the DoorDash and/or Caviar platforms and were charged more than the base advertised price. The defendants are DoorDash Technologies Canada Inc. and DoorDash, Inc. (collectively, "DoorDash"). Lecours alleged that DoorDash engaged in "drip pricing" — advertising seemingly low initial prices for delivery services while imposing additional mandatory fees at checkout, including service fees, delivery fees, expanded-range fees, small order fees, and "regulatory response" fees (together, the "Added Fees"), thereby preventing consumers from purchasing at the advertised lowest price.

Two related class actions were also filed before the Supreme Court of British Columbia: Sparling v. DoorDash, Inc. et al. (Court File No. SE254625), filed on June 19, 2025, and Gallego v. DoorDash, Inc. et al. (Court File No. VLC-S-S-254656), filed on June 25, 2025 (collectively, the "B.C. Proceedings"). The proposed class in the B.C. Proceedings encompasses all Canadian residents — including those in Quebec — who purchased delivery services through DoorDash's websites and/or apps from the date DoorDash first implemented the Added Fees until the certification date. A consortium of counsel was formed across the three proceedings: Actis Law Group Inc. (Quebec), Siskinds LLP (B.C.), and Hammerco Lawyers LLP (B.C.) (together, "Class Counsel"). Class Counsel agreed to concentrate efforts in British Columbia and seek consolidation of the B.C. Proceedings into a single class action. Separately, the Competition Bureau brought an application before the Competition Tribunal against DoorDash, alleging breaches of paragraph 74.01(1)(a), "drip pricing" as defined in subsection 74.01(1.1), and section 74.011 of the Competition Act, RSC 1985, c. C-34; that matter was at the discovery stage, with a hearing on the merits scheduled for fall 2026.

Applicable legal framework

The central procedural question was whether the Quebec court could stay the Quebec Proceeding in favour of the B.C. Proceedings. Article 3137 of the Civil Code of Quebec permits a Quebec court to stay proceedings before it if another action between the same parties, based on the same facts and having the same subject, is pending before a foreign authority and that foreign action can result in a decision recognizable in Quebec. However, Article 3155(4) C.C.Q. bars recognition of a foreign judgment where a similar action was already pending in Quebec and the Quebec court was "first seized of the dispute," meaning a stay under Article 3137 is ordinarily available only if the foreign action was filed first. The Court of Appeal has recognized that the general rules of lis pendens do not apply neatly to class action authorization motions, and that identity of parties may exist even where the applicants differ, provided the proposed classes are similar. Beyond Article 3137, a Quebec court may also exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Article 49 of the Code of Civil Procedure to stay a class action — even if the Quebec application was filed first — where the interests of Quebec class members and the proper administration of justice favour a suspension. In all cases, the court must ensure that Quebec members' rights are protected: the proposed representative must be capable of properly representing them; the benefits of applicable favourable Quebec legislation must be preserved; and notices and communications must be disseminated in Quebec and in French.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court acknowledged that the Quebec Proceeding was filed before the B.C. Proceedings and that the strict conditions of Article 3137 C.C.Q. were therefore not met. Nonetheless, it found that staying the Quebec action was in the interests of justice, relying on its inherent jurisdiction under Article 49 C.C.P. The court identified three key grounds: the Quebec and B.C. proceedings target the same defendants; the B.C. Proceedings were being amended to include Quebec residents; and both sets of proceedings rest on the same facts, object, and causes of action. The court further weighed that allowing parallel proceedings in different courts would risk conflicting judgments and impose significant, avoidable costs on all parties while wasting scarce judicial resources. On the protection of Quebec class members, the court was satisfied that the B.C. representatives understood their obligations to represent all class members including those in Quebec; that Actis Law Group Inc. as Quebec Class Counsel would actively participate in the consortium and ensure that claims available under Quebec law would be pleaded in the B.C. Proceedings; and that Class Counsel undertook to disseminate notices in both English and French, with French-speaking lawyers available to respond to inquiries from Quebec members. The court concluded that a stay was consistent with the principles of proportionality and judicial economy.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court granted the application and stayed the Quebec Proceeding until a final judgment is rendered in the B.C. Proceedings — being Sparling v. DoorDash, Inc. et al. (Court File No. SE254625) and Gallego v. DoorDash, Inc. et al. (Court File No. VLC-S-S-254656) — or earlier if subsequently requested by the parties and ordered by the court. The court also took note of Class Counsel's commitment to bilingual communications for Quebec class members and the parties' undertaking to provide semi-annual status updates on the B.C. Proceedings, with notice required within 30 days of any significant development affecting the Quebec Proceeding. The judgment was rendered without costs. The applicant, Maude Lecours, was the successful party on this procedural motion; no monetary award, damages, or costs were ordered.